Navigate:

Opinion Contributor

Getting back the 47 percent

It'd be a mistake to assume women are a monolithic constituency, the authors write. | AP Photo

In 2008, these women voted overwhelmingly for change. But this year, many of them are unsure of their vote. To understand more about these dynamics, Women’s Voices Women Vote Action Fund and Democracy Corps engaged in a three-phase research project with a particular emphasis on disengaged voters, Obama defectors and unmarried women. In the national survey, we learned that unmarried women reject “you’re on your own” economics and believe “we are all in this together.” They strongly agree that we should “use the budget to help the middle class by seriously investing in education, rebuilding America and making sure Medicare is there” now and in the future.

In focus groups in Fairfax and Columbus, Ohio, we learned these women think of themselves as “the 47 percent” — those Americans Mitt Romney said are “dependent upon government and believe that they are victims entitled to health care, food and housing.” According to an unmarried woman in Ohio, “[The 47 percent is] us. Normal people who may have jobs, who need some assistance.” We also learned that unmarried women see everything from income inequality to women’s reproductive health services as part of, not separate from, the economic issues surrounding the 47 percent.

Text Size

-

+

reset

We learned a valuable lesson when we conducted dial-meter groups and post-debate focus groups during the first debate: There is a clear path and opportunity to motivate and turn out unmarried women. They are hungry for a strong economic message about specific policies and programs forward that touch their lives directly. But the president and Democrats must seize the opportunity to connect with these women living on the edge who want jobs and an education for their children and worry that Social Security and Medicare will not be there for them when it is time. They voted for hope four years ago; this year, they need something more tangible to hold onto.

Page Gardner is the president of Women’s Voices Women’s Vote. Stan Greenberg is the CEO of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and co-founder, with James Carville, of Democracy Corps.

Readers' Comments (22)

As long as unmarried women view the government as the husband they never had, Obama and the Democrats will exploit that self-confidence gap and work to keep that voting sector dependent on them.

Romney spoke correctly in his 47% talk (though it's been misinterpreted as uncaring). A certain sector of the population sees the role of government as a provider/ baby sitter/hand holder/hand-out provider.

That's not the proper role of government and conservatives should not pander to it.

Old time conservatives view the self-determined life as the ultimate liberation. Conservatives will not get that dependent-class vote this year, and as Romney conceded, they never will.

Hopefully, economic growth and job growth will trump dependency growth and this ship can be turned. It will only happen if that slim self respecting majority out-votes the growing free-lunch crowd

rock-ribbed: "As long as unmarried women view the government as the husband they never had, Obama and the Democrats will exploit that self-confidence gap and work to keep that voting sector dependent on them."

Wow! You couldn't have pegged it any *BETTER*!

The whole goal of the Marxist Democrats for an entire generation has been to celebrate victimhood and to offer government as the solution. When was the last time you heard a Marxist Democrat celebrate individual responsibility and denigrate such societal abnormalities as unmarried women having children?

Unmarried women are most likely unmarried because they choose to be. That is their business. What is not fair to taxpayers is that those unmarried women expect to be supported with tax dollars. It's also unfair that unmarried women raise children without a father. Their children don't get a choice. Our choice is simple: stop supporting unmarried mothers with entitlements. As soon as those women figure out that having a baby doesn't guarantee a handout, they'll go back to getting married and forming traditional families and their kids will have two parents to raise and love them.

The more Obama talks - the more America tunes out! It has finally reached a point where America realizes that The White House no longer embraces a credible narrative - that Obama’s rhetoric fails to match Reality.

America is being offered the choice between Obama's Economic Decline - his Culture of Entitlement -or- Mitt Romney’s vision to restore America by re-claiming the prosperity that has made America a giant amongst nations.

Will America choose the mediocrity and generic embrace of Obama’s “nanny state” -or- will we choose to be the masters of our own fate! Will we choose to adopt the pliant and complacent nature of the herd -or- will we stand up for the right to pursue success and secure the future of our children!

With our GDP measured at 1.3 % - chronic and record-level Unemployment becoming the new normal - with Obama pushing for increased Government spending and Trillion Dollar Deficits into the foreseeable future - how does America ever balance the Budget or realize the prosperity that will secure the future of our children.

This is NOT the change that America had in mind - and Main Street is bearing the brunt of Obama's failed Economic Leadership!

The answer to America’s Economic malaise is Growth - a concept that Obama confuses with Government intervention at every level!

Do you really think Romney exposing the 47% remark as ridiculously out of context is going to help Obama? Come on. We've been had by our own media. Everywhere I look in the media I see heaps of anti-Romney sentiment. I don't see much of any anti-Obama sentiment. This does not mean that Romney is bad and Obama is good - just that the media is far from providing Americans fair and balanced coverage.

They reference polls weighted unrealistically towards Democrats - above even 2008 levels. They fail to report the independents flocking to Obama though it's right there in the polling. They invent "gaffes" for Romney all the time which prove to be nothing more than his words taken ridiculously out of context. They've created a Romney that doesn't match up with the real man at all. Hence the unnecessary surprise at the first debate - we've been sold a lie. By the way, I've read dozens of personal accounts of Romney and they all agree that he is kind, generous, helpful, honest, hardworking, thrifty, and funny. And of course they don't report Obama's many failures in office.

Read both sides for balanced coverage because you sure won't find it in one place and both sides leave stuff out. How can you make an informed opinion on any topic if you consider only one point of view, flawed by definition? You can't. Thanks for listening. www.conservativemormonmom.blogspot.com

@ Rockribbed: " As long as unmarried women view the government as the husband they never had, Obama and the Democrats will exploit that self-confidence gap and work to keep that voting sector dependent on them.

Romney spoke correctly in his 47% talk (though it's been misinterpreted as uncaring). A certain sector of the population sees the role of government as a provider/ baby sitter/hand holder/hand-out provider.

That's not the proper role of government and conservatives should not pander to it.

Old time conservatives view the self-determined life as the ultimate liberation. Conservatives will not get that dependent-class vote this year, and as Romney conceded, they never will.

Hopefully, economic growth and job growth will trump dependency growth and this ship can be turned. It will only happen if that slim self respecting majority out-votes the growing free-lunch crowd"

1. the 47% number is debatable but its not the number thats the problem its the characterization of HALF THE COUNTRY as govt teat sucking slackers who won't take responsibility for themselves which isn't "misinterpreted or inelegant or unartful...its just plain insulting. And factually WRONG. As romney was pandering to his donors when he said it.

2. you are wrong when you say that Conservatives will not get that dependent-class vote this year...a good number of that 47% is voting republican even as their presidential candidate said he couldn't give a damn about them.

As someone who pays income taxes i.e the 53% -I am worried. I'm not concerned that some of the 47% has not paid income tax. I am concerned that some of the 47% just want their lives taken care of, and they "need" money from the rest of us. The level of dependncy assures a virtually "no growth" economy. What you see is what you get (just more).

Do we wants more tradgedies like Katrina when many of the residents could not leave becasue they did not have any money - Becasuse their checks didn't come til Sept 1st. This level of dependence can be fatal-as it was then in New Orleans.

Also government benefits become a right - Get paid just for breathing. When a government goes broke and can't pay -like Greece. You then have civil unrest. creating ever more hardship for the average citizen

America isn't perfect -But we didn't become the richest country in human history but putting everyone on the dole.

The middle class is the middle class because of a strong private sector. Let's not kill the golden goose with endless government that has not and can not deliver even a small percentage of what it is promising.

I would like to take the opportunity to explain the way the LDS faith views the roles of woman. I was a convert to the church 20 years ago and have experienced the difference myself. Women are loved and respected, but expected to stay home and be a home maker and mother to their children. The young girls are taught this early in their life and their place in the family unit is very well taught. When Governor Romney explains his views on woman, I can't believe that his church upbringing wouldn't reflect his views if he were elected President. Beware ladies.